On 2010-06-19, Peter Webb <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:>> The relevant point: the *only* input to the Turing machine in the>> definition is n. The rest of the tape must is blank. Peter>> apparently believes that a number is still computable even if the>> Turing machine must be supplied with an infinite amount of input (the>> list of reals).>> No.

Oh? Then what leads you to believe that the antidiagonal of a (notnecessarily recursive) list of computable reals is computable?

> Do you agree that Cantor's diagonal proof when applied to a> purported list of all computable Reals will produce a computable> Real not on the list

No, for the fifth time now. The antidiagonal of a list of allcomputable real is not computable. How many more times would you likeme to repeat this simple and mathematically obvious statement?